April – May 2015
Week 20 2015
15/01928/LBA – 5 Abbey Green City Centre Bath
External alterations to facilitate painting of the front wall at ground floor elevation. (Retrospective) Object: The Trust strongly regrets the retrospective nature of this application, and the fact that the applicant undertook works to this highly significant historic building in a very sensitive location without specialist advice or permission. The Trust also considers that the work that has been done has substantially harmed the historic fabric of the listed building and is reprehensible. The Design and Access Statement has insufficient information and we would expect to see at least a Statement of Significance and a Heritage Impact Assessment on the impact of the works on the historic stonework. The D & A Statement presents subjective opinion attempting to justify the works already carried out, and the applicant appears to have not consulted with any experts or B&NES on the matter. At the very least we would expect expert opinion to have informed the course of action taken. The justification for the works use guesswork as to previous treatments to the facade. The use of commercial modern paint will restrict the breathability of the stone and therefore cause further damage to the historic fabric. The remnants of old paint layers should have been carefully removed by a specialist contractor and then the facade should be either left as found (following any recommended conservation repairs) or a lime shelter coat applied to protect the stonework and to provide the ‘neater’ look to the shop front that the owner wishes for. The Trust does not accept that aesthetic considerations should overcome the principles of conservation of the listed building. In particular the painting over the historic gate pintle is of concern; the archaeological evidence, and evidential value will be harmed by the covering of modern impervious paint which will cause moisture build up behind the paint within the stonework and around the pintle, potentially causing metal decay. The works, by virtue of inappropriate and damaging paint treatment and materials and the lack of detailed information and analysis are considered to cause substantial harm to the special significance, evidential, architectural and historic value of the listed building, the adjacent listed buildings and the conservation area contrary to S16 and S72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment of the NPPF, policies of B1, B2 and CP6 of the Core Strategy and Local Plan Policies BH2 and BH6 and should be refused. The owner should be required to remove the paint and apply an approved treatment to the facade using a specialist contractor and to supply full and rigorous documentation for these works.
15/01979/LBA – 10 Royal Crescent City Centre Bath
External alterations for the repair or renewal of 24no stone balusters over cornice. Comment: The Trust cannot make an informed statement on this case as there is insufficient information regarding the proposal. In the Heritage Statement there are references to a Design, Access and Justification Statement which is not included in this application. In addition we note the references to out of date policy PPS5. There is also no detailed pre-cleaning survey or method analysis. On this basis we feel the application should be withdrawn and resubmitted with the full paperwork. 15/01848/FUL- 54 Richmond Place Beacon Hill Bath Bath Reinstatement of stone posts and railings with new boundary wall to front garden. Support: The Trust supports this application which we note is a re-submission of a previously approved application. The application seeks to reinstate traditional stone walls, pillars and railings prevalent in this street and mirroring neighbouring properties. The application is well considered and aims to repair the street scene and enhance the character and local distinctiveness of the area we would recommend it be approved, subject to a Condition to secure the use of natural Bath stone materials.
15/01984/LBA & 15/01983/FUL – 4 City View Walcot Bath
Erection of a single storey rear infill extension, detached outbuilding and associated remodelling works. Internal alternations and external alterations to include erection of a single storey rear infill extension, detached outbuilding and associated remodelling works Object: The Trust is concerned at the lack of appropriate documentation and justification for this proposal. At the least given the designation of the building we would expect to see some detail on the significance of the building and some assessment of the impact of harm to historic fabric and the listed building. We do not agree that the proposals would not have an impact on the character of the property, in fact we consider that the removal of the bay would harm the character of the building as (unless proved otherwise) this is a distinct character feature of this building and others in the terrace and as such is a unifying element. The removal of historic fabric and alterations to historic plan form would detract from the special character of the listed building and the setting of other heritage assets and the proposed flat roof extension would sit unhappily against the existing historic bays. We would also have concerns about the impact of the design of the new extension and its possible intrusion on distant views to this terrace. The proposed scheme by virtue of the demolition of significant historic fabric and unsympathetic design, would substantially harm the historic, architectural, aesthetic and evidential value of the listed building and and would be contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990, Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices D4, BH1, BH2 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.
15/01966/AR – Street Record Haycombe Drive Southdown Bath
Display of six sheet internally illuminated advertisement in bus shelters serving stops along the no.12 bus route along The Hollow, including stop no.1 (Haycombe Cemetery) and no.3 (Mount Road – Eastbound). Whilst we understand the applicant’s desire to increase their revenue through advertising, we will continue to object to illuminated signs in the city and its environs, which form the World Heritage Site, a conservation area and the setting of these designated areas respectively. Many bus shelters have illuminated advertisements but these should not be a precedent for a low illuminated city like Bath. Secondary sources of light in the proposed location will emit sufficient light for the advertisements to be seen, such as the ‘courtesy light’, and there is little need for additional illumination. In addition we would comment on the excessive luminosity and glare of these internal lights. In addition we would comment on the excessive luminosity and glare of these internal lights that cannot be dimmed or turned off when out of date advertisements are in place. We regret the undue commercialisation of the public realm, especially by commercial agencies as opposed to local-interest information. We have concerns that the absence of information about the content of such advertisements is becoming a precedent. As such, we feel that a condition for local interest content only ought to be sought. We would also comment that often the content of these advertisements are often out of date and are therefore redundant and serve no purpose, at the same time wasting energy. The proposed scheme by virtue of material, appearance, illumination and form would be harmful to the visual amenity value of the area, and neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposal is contrary to, Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF, B&NES Core Strategy polices; B1, B4 and CP6 , and ‘Saved’ Local Plan Policies D2 and D4, and should be refused.
15/01935/FUL 1- 3 Westgate Street, Bath
Use of highway for the external seating and tables for The Stable Restaurant. Object: Bath Preservation Trust has no objection in principle to the siting of tables and chairs in this historic pedestrian location, which has been deemed a cafe culture destination by B&NES, however we object to this application on the basis that the number of people to be seated outside (over 70) is far too high and would ‘take over’ this area of pavement, and indeed the square, in a sensitive historic location. Aside from considerations of highways, access, overcrowding and antisocial behaviour, this very high level of street clutter would harm the visual amenity of the street scene in this highly significant location and therefore would intrude on and damage the setting of the nearby heritage assets. The design for the tables and benches are chunky, incongruous and insensitive to the character of the local area and the World Heritage Site and we doubt, given their size and number, that they could easily be stored away every night as needed. The inappropriate amount of tables and benches and the associated visual clutter would have a detrimental effect on the visual amenity of this part of the Conservation Area and detract from the setting of a number of listed buildings. The scheme would be contrary to the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies; D2, D4, BH2 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused
15/02011/LBA – 14 Catharine Place, Bath
External alterations to include stone cleaning and conservation works to principle facade. Recommendation: Comment Comment: The Trust welcomes the detailed supporting information submitted with the application. Including the Cleaning report and the Stonework Survey. We are pleased to note that the proposed work has been informed by the B&NS/BPT publication The Cleaning of Bath Stone. The proposal to conduct trial areas, and that assertion that it is not intended to over clean the stone or eliminate patina is also welcomed. The Trust would always recommend the use of gentle nebulous spray methods in the first instance, and would advise that any cleaning method, including the use of harsher high temperature cleaning and poultices, should only be conducted by specialised contractors following full expert review of the affected areas. In general, there is evidence to suggest that the proposed stone cleaning is justified as the harmful sulphate deposits on the building appear to warrant some gentle intervention to prevent further degradation, conserve the historic stone fabric and enhance the heritage asset and it setting.
Week 19 2015
Bog Island News 8 Terrace Walk City Centre Bath – 15/01570/FUL/15/01571/AR/15/01891/LBA
Installation of an self-service ATM. Display of illuminated sign accepted cards logos and Euronet Worldwide contact details to top of the ATM fascia and illuminated yellow blue and white top sign above ATM fascia. Object: The Trust considers the Design & Access and Heritage Statement to be deficient and in parts incorrect. The site is within the Conservation Area and in fact the listed building and shop has historical significance in that it was the original home of Leakes Bookshop opened in 1721. The Trust objects to this proposal on the basis that this proposal will fail to enhance the already cluttered low quality shop frontage and street scene in this area. The cumulative impact of the ATM, illumination and other poor quality alterations and additions substantially harms the aesthetic and architectural character of the listed building, its setting and the overall visual amenity value of the vicinity. Terrace Walk is adjacent to the highly sensitive and significant Abbey environs. Whilst the Trust understands the applicants desire to provide services to the tourist public (though Terrace Walk already has one ATM and there are many in the city centre), as the shop front is modern we feel a revised approach could improve the proposal (for example locating the ATM within the premises, removing the Dutch blind, decreasing the number of illuminated signs and if possible the colour scheme). The application is deficient and in places incorrect in terms of the level of detail and information provided and therefore should not be considered. The proposed signage and machine by virtue of its illumination, size and position; would be visually intrusive and harm the architectural value and significance of the listed building; would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, and detract from the visual amenity value of the area, and thus would detract from the special qualities of the World Heritage Site. The proposal is contrary to Policies D2, D4, BH1, BH2, BH6, BH17 and BH19 of the B&NES Local Plan, B1 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and therefore should be refused.
The Courtyard 3 Lilliput Court City Centre Bath – 15/01637/AR
Display of 2no. non-illuminated hanging signs. (Regularisation) Object: The Trust opposes the damaging cumulative visual clutter that is prevalent across Bath. This highly significant area within the heart of the World Heritage City is already considerably cluttered with signage, A Boards and street furniture. We feel another projecting hanging sign would be intrusive, would damage the visual amenity of the area and the iron fixings would damage the historic fabric of the listed building. In addition the large size of the hanging sign (800mm x 800mm), the wall mounted sign (700x900mm) and the proposed material (DiBond aluminium) is inappropriate for the highly sensitive historic location. The proposed colour scheme (white, black and orange) is also not in keeping with appropriate colour schemes for the Georgian World Heritage Site and conservation area. We would suggest that traditional hand painted wooden signs would be more appropriate for this site. Whilst we appreciate the applicants desire to advertise their premises we feel that some sympathetic consideration must be given to the valuable historic local area, and some advertising restraint should be exercised. The proposed signage by virtue of its size, materials and positions, would be visually intrusive, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and would detract from the visual amenity value of the area. The proposal is contrary to Policies D2, D4, BH1, BH6, BH17 and BH19 of the B&NES Local Plan, B1 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and therefore should be refused.
3 – 4 Northumberland Place Bath – 15/01659/FUL
Siting of tables outside front of shop for displaying stock. (Retrospective) Object: The Trust objects to this application on the basis that the proposed tables would add low quality ‘bazaar’ style street clutter to an already chaotic street scene in this narrow street. The Trust also regrets the retrospective nature of the application. In general the display of goods outside shop fronts are contrary to the principles of high quality design in the public realm that should be upheld in the Conservation Area and the World Heritage Site. The proposed scheme would harm the significance of the listed building, neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene. The scheme would be contrary to the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies; D2, D4, BH2 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.
40 St James’s Square Lansdown Bath – 5/01739/FUL/15/01740/LBA
Conversion of the building from 5 flats to 2 flats and a house. The basement flat and ground floor are to remain as a self contained flats with the floors above to form the house. Removal of modern partitions and minor alterations. Comment: The Trust welcomes the majority of the proposed works to the listed building, including the reinstatement of traditional joinery. However, there is lack of information which prevents us from making a proper assessment. In particular we are concerned about the lack of information regarding the works to the vaults, and the proposal to apply a lime render which is not a typical vaults treatment and would alter the appearance of the vaulted area (unless of course it has an historical lime render treatment). There is also no detail on the method of paint removal to the front elevation and courtyard area. We would recommend that any works in the vaults and any paint cleaning should be informed by the advice contained in the the joint B&NES/BPT Stone Cleaning Guidance.
Society Café 5 Kingsmead Square City Centre Bath – 15/01811/FUL
Use of highway for the siting of 7 tables and 28 chairs. Comment: Bath Preservation Trust has no objection in principle for the siting of tables and chairs in this mainly pedestrian historic location, which has been deemed to be a ‘cafe culture’ destination by B&NS, however we feel the number of tables and chairs suggested (7 tables and 28 chairs) is excessive and would create visual clutter, therefore harming the amenity of the street scene and the setting of the adjacent and nearby listed buildings. The overall Kingsmead area suffers from a prevalence of visual clutter and this proposal would exacerbate the problem. The tables and chairs would be situated in front of an important terrace of early Georgian houses displaying the typical Georgian character of symmetry, proportion and group value identified as integral to the Outstanding Universal Values of the World Heritage Site and therefore consideration should be given to the high values of these assets and the possible harm to their setting. We would recommend a fewer number of tables and chairs in this location.
Proposed Development Site Roseberry Road Twerton Bath – 15/01932/EOUT
Mixed-use regeneration comprising the erection of six buildings to accommodate up to 200 flats, flexible business employment floorspace (Use Class B1) (up to 6,000 sq m gross), local needs shopping (up to 1,350 sq m gross) together with all associated development including demolition of existing buildings, site remediation, construction of new access roads and riverside walkway/cycle path, landscaping and tree planting. Object: The Trust notes from the submitted Report of Community Involvement that our views on the pre-application consultation have been noted. However we continue to object to the scheme on the basis of our initial reservations which have not been addressed, in particular our concerns about the bulk, massing, height and layout of the proposed buildings, poor connection with the riverside and failure to reflect and harmonise with the pattern and grain of the local area, or present a street frontage which respects Bath’s coherent townscape character. We are also concerned about the selection of materials and the proposed colour palette of the scheme, in particular the use of red bricks which, whilst connecting the area to its industrial past, could be visually incongruous and jarring in buildings of this size.
Principle of development We welcome the principle of the scheme as an opportunity to develop the site at a key intersection and gateway to the wider city. The 30% of affordable housing, dependent on density, and the higher proportion smaller 1-2 bed dwellings represents a much needed type and form which we support. The fact that student accommodation is not intended for the site is welcomed, as we are aware that there is not sufficient projected demand and that this form of development is detrimental to the opportunity for building affordable housing. Employment buildings We consider that the mass and bulk of the employment buildings is too great. We recommend a design review of this building. The nodal building The 7-8 storey height of the nodal building is inappropriate for this site and Roseberry Place as a whole. The Trust has an ‘in principle’ objection to development at this height. We are aware that the use of modifiers to the recommended height for this zone, as per the B&NES Building Heights Strategy (2010), is at the discretion of the local planning authority, but is also subject to justification. Development of the site immediately to the north of the Roseberry Place site may lead to demand for another building of similar height in order to create visual symmetry. Furthermore the site at the corner of Windsor Bridge is an existing and natural nodal point. Other taller than average ‘landmark’ buildings have been approved, and justified, specifically in order to provide river/bridge-side markers but not for other marking points. A potential ‘cluster’ of taller buildings here could be harmful to the visual amenity of the area and views to, from and through the location situated in the World Heritage Site and could create an unwelcome precedent. We refer to paragraphs 2.9.10 – 2.9.15 of the Bath Western Riverside SPD (2008) for guidance on proportion, landmarks and building heights.
BPT has strong reservations about upper storey design and the set-back roof which is a disappointing design response that is becoming prevalent in developments in the western riverside area. We would urge the applicants to re-consider the design of some of the upper storeys, particularly of the nodal building with a view to presenting a more suitable design which breaks with the set-back form.
The plinth of ‘floor zero’ of building 1, facing Windsor Bridge Road is proposed to be blank. Whist this contributes to the excessive height, it also presents an unattractive and hostile frontage to the street scene. Consultation feedback At pre-application stage we expressed concerns about the bulk and massing of the employment use buildings, the height and location of the nodal building as well as the design of upper storeys (in particular the set-back roofs) and we do not feel these concerns have been addressed in the proposed scheme. We note that in general a high proportion of the consultees were concerned about the ‘overall height scale and mass of the proposed development’ and similarly that ‘some’ of the 9 consultees felt the buildings ‘would not be aesthetically pleasing nor in keeping with the area in Bath’. The applicants responses to consultation appears to have examined the issue of building heights, scale and massing and concluded that in general the proposals meet with council policy. We strongly disagree and feel that the applicants have not shown the appropriate level of consideration to the concerns of the respondents.
Conclusion We strongly object to the proposal and assert that the proposed scheme continues to present unacceptable development, specifically: the bulk and massing of the employment building is too great, the height and proposed location of the nodal building is inappropriate and in particular that the development will negatively affect the views to this area within the World Heritage Site, intrude on the visual homogeneity of the urban grain in this area and set an unwelcome precedent in this sensitive location. The proposed scheme, by virtue of height, bulk, design, appearance, harms the setting of setting and views of multiple designated heritage assets, this development would neither preserve nor and enhance the setting of the conservation area, would fail to enhance local distinctiveness of the townscape and would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the location. We believe that the special qualities of the World Heritage Site would be compromised by such development. The scheme would be contrary to the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies; D2, D4 and BH2 B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.
Week 18 2015
Next 33 Stall Street City Centre Bath – 15/01826/AR
Display of 1 x projection sign and 1x illuminated fascia sign. Object: The Trust welcomes the bespoke approach to the fascia signage but regret the use of illumination. Whilst we appreciate the applicant’s desire to advertise their premises, we continue to resist the unnecessary use of illuminated signs. Bath is a low-illuminated city, so this form of advertising will add to light levels in the World Heritage Site and conservation area. Street lighting and light spill from general internal lighting from within the building should be sufficient to illuminate signs and shop fronts. The proposed use of aluminium and perspex is objectionable, as they are not materials in keeping with the traditional palette of the city and we would recommend hand-painted signs be used. The proposed scheme, by virtue of the means of illumination and materials, would neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of conservation area and be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene, and would detract from the special qualities of the World Heritage Site. The scheme would be contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; B1 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; D4, BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.
Think Thoughtful Ltd 19 Barton Street City Centre Bath – 15/01676/FUL
Use of public highway for the siting of tables and chairs with barriers. Comment: Bath Preservation Trust has no objection in principle for the siting of tables, chairs and a barrier in this mainly pedestrian location, and is acceptable providing that it is strictly restricted to the amounts stated, as any more furniture would create visual clutter and therefore harm the amenity of the street scene and the setting of nearby listed buildings.
Garden Flat 104 Lower Oldfield Park Oldfield Park Bath – 15/01849/FUL
Creation of lightwell with handrail. Insertion of lower ground floor window. Replace front boundary wall with Bath stone wall (retrospective).
Comment: The Trust regrets the retrospective application but welcomes the proposal to reinstate the boundary wall in natural Bath stone. We would further comment that the gate piers and pillars should be retained.
Week 17 2015
15/00771/REG13 – 10 Dorchester Street Bath BA1 1SS
External works to 10 – 16 Dorchester Street and 13 – 15 Manvers Street for the refurbishment of shop fronts including removal of paint from stonework, redecorations of shop fronts and entrance doors and new fascia signage. Comment: We continue to support this scheme as it will enhance not only the character and appearance of the listed building, but also the visual amenity of the street-scene, at this gateway location to the World Heritage Site and conservation area. Appropriate work to reinstate the historic appearance of this designated heritage asset is welcomed and we would encourage and recommend this approach to all historic buildings across the city, where necessary. We note the supporting documentation is well informed and detailed. We strongly recommend and support the production of a detailed pre-cleaning survey. We welcome the intention to maintain the natural stone finish of the pilasters/columns should the condition of the stone allow. The only reservation that we have is the proposed use of gloss finish paint on the stone work, where egg-shell may be more appropriate. We would also encourage further restoration works to uncover and repair the boxed in pilaster adjacent to Number 10 and reinstate the stone work to the opposite pilaster frame where a call box has been inserted.
The Royal Bank Of Scotland Plc 8 – 9 Quiet Street – 15/01684/LBA
External alterations to include repairs and TORC clean of the facade. Comment: The Trust regrets that the lack of appropriately detailed documentation to support this application, in particular details of the location and methodology of stone repairs, or which sections of the facade will be cleaned. The Trust is concerned about the lack of information regarding the possible cleaning and protection of the significant statuary on the listed building and the method of fixing. The Trust feels that as the building has obviously been cleaned in the past, minor re-soiling does not justify the abrasive nature of the Torc system. The proposal to remove the vegetation is welcomed however the Design and Access Statement requires further detailed information and scrutiny (in particular in relation to the important statuary) before approval is granted.
15/01559/LBA – Flat 4 Second Floor 5 Portland Place Lansdown
Internal and external alterations to facilitate installation of new condenser boiler and new flue. Comment: The proposed ventilation terminal appears to terminate on the roof of the building. This terminal should be discreetly located and be of a colour to match the surrounding – a recessive grey or stone colour rather than white or metal. We would also expect that due consideration should be given to the mitigation of harm to historic fabric where possible in these works to relocate the flue.
Week 16 2015
15/01462/AR – 10 Southgate Street Bath
Display of 1 non-illuminated double sided projecting sign Object: Whilst we appreciate the applicant’s desire to advertise their commercial premises, we object to this application as it proposes the use of materials that are not suitable for a premises in a prominent location in the conservation area and World Heritage Site. The use of acrylic and perspex are materials that are not in keeping with the traditional palette of materials prevalent across the city. We would suggest that a hand-painted timber sign would be a more suitable form of signage. We also note that in conjunction with the proposals in application 14/04037/AR there would be a prevalence of signage, both illuminated and projecting, which would create a cluttered corner within the street scene and therefore would harm visual amenity. The proposed scheme, by virtue of the materials, would harm the significance of the listed building, neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene. The scheme would be contrary to the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies; D2, D4, BH2, BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.
15/01544/AR 9 – 11 St Lawrence Street City Centre
Display of 1no internally-illuminated projecting sign Object: Whilst we appreciate the applicant’s desire to advertise their premises, we continue to resist the unnecessary use of illuminated signs. Bath is a low-illuminated city, so this form of advertising will add to light levels in the World Heritage Site and conservation area. Street lighting and light spill from general internal lighting from within the building should be sufficient to illuminate signs and shop fronts. The proposed use of acrylic vinyl is objectionable, as it is not a material in keeping with the traditional palette of the city and we would recommend hand-painted signs be used. The proposed scheme, by virtue of the means of illumination and materials, would neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of conservation area and be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene, and would detract from the special qualities of the World Heritage Site. The scheme would be contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; B1 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; D4, BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused. 15/01572/CLEU Rustico Italian Bistro, 2 Margaret’s Buildings City Centre
Use of public highway for the siting of tables and chairs (Certificate of Lawfulness for an Existing Use) Comment: Bath Preservation Trust has no objection in principle for the siting of tables and chairs in this pedestrian location, however, there is not enough detail contained within the application to make a thorough assessment of the proposals. It appears that the proposed number of tables and stools are too many for the area in question and that there is no detail of any chairs. These elements should be clarified prior to condition so as not to harm the street scene and setting in this sensitive area.
15/01647/LBA – 15/01649/LBA Dancerace Ltd 2 Brock Street City Centre
External alterations to include the cleaning of stonework and removal of paint from the porch, basement and window reveals. External alterations include the replacement of sash windows with Georgian bars and the raising of first floor cills. Comment: The Trust welcomes the overall works to this listed building in a significant and sensitive historic location, in particular we are supportive of the proposal to replace the sash windows with Georgian glazing bars and the lowering the cills to return the facade to its original Georgian arrangement. We note that the proposed stone cleaning survey and techniques are in line with current best practice and our own guidelines on Bath stone. However we regret the lack of appropriate and proportionate documentation to support the application. For a building of this significance within a key historic street we would expect a Statement of Significance and Heritage Impact Assessment to adequately examine the impact these works will have on the listed building and its setting. It is clear in the NPPF that the impact and acceptability of development proposals can only be properly assessed if there is a clear understanding of the significance of the asset and the contribution of its setting and in this case we feel the documentation falls well short of this requirement.
15/01680/LBA – 1 Vane Street Bathwick
Internal alterations and external alterations at the ground floor level to include the formation of a new internal opening, changes to the internal doors and the replacement of the ventilation terminal. Comment: We note the lack of information on the new vent opening and the colour/style of the new vent cover. The proposed ventilation terminal should be discreetly located and be of a colour to match the stonework – a recessive grey or stone colour rather than white. We would also expect that due consideration should be given to the mitigation of harm to historic fabric where possible in these works to relocate the ventilation opening.
15/01359/LBA – Pitt House 20 Crescent Lane City Centre
External works to remove existing rear storeroom and clean rear elevation, remove existing bay window and reinstate stable doors to front elevation
Comment: The Trust is supportive in principle of the proposals to enhance and reinstate original elements of this listed building. However we feel the application would benefit from a more detailed historic building report, incorporating a Statement of Significance and Heritage Impact Assessment. This building, whilst visually hidden from the street scene, forms part of the highly significant Royal Crescent estate and this proximity coupled with the historic significance of this former Coach House, calls for a more detailed proportionate analysis of possible harm to historic fabric, significance, views and setting.
15/01622/FUL/15/01623/LBA/15/01616/LBA 18A Queen Square City Centre
Alterations to rear parking area and construction of 2 No freestanding stores. Internal alterations to include the formation of an opening in an internal wall on the ground floor level, Comment: The Trust wishes to comment on the lack of a landscaping plan or other relevant documentation for the works to the rear parking area. Given the historic significance of the area and setting of the proposed works, and the possible impact on views from the street and from adjacent heritage assets, we feel further details are necessary in order to make informed judgement. We would expect documentation to include information on the materials proposed for the cobbles, and the proposed patterning of the cobbles. In addition we have concerns about the height and profile of the freestanding stores; in particular we feel a ‘lean to’ natural slate roof pitched lower than the perimeter wall would be more appropriate than the proposed high pitched roof.
15/01458/LBA – 7 Walcot Buildings Walcot
External works to repaint existing shop front a dark navy colour and to have the business name traditionally sign written in a pale gold. Support: The Trust supports this application which proposes an elegant treatment to the fascia of this listed building. The colour palette and use of traditional signwriting are in-line with the Trust’s policies on shop front treatments. The proposed scheme, by virtue of the materials, would not harm the significance of the listed building, and would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and be beneficial to the visual amenity of the street scene. The scheme would be in accord with the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies; D2, D4, BH2, BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be approved.
15/01547/FUL- 50 Claude Avenue Twerton
Provision of loft conversation to include rear dormer. Object: The Bath Preservation Trust considers that overly large flat roof dormer windows are not in the interest of good design and fail to reinforce the local distinctiveness of the Bath World Heritage Site. The strong horizontal emphasis the box form presents is a visually intrusive feature in the Bath townscape.
This application presents a scheme that would set an undesirable precedent in the area which would harm the visual amenity of the street scene. The flat roofed dormer is at the same height as the existing ridge and covers the whole area of the roof, this too large and this would be detrimental to the traditional form of the building.
The proposed scheme by virtue of the detrimental impact on the street scene and the inappropriate design would not enhance or preserve the visual amenity of the street scene in with the World Heritage site, and be contrary to Section 7 ‘Requiring Good Design’ of the NPPF, policy CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices D2 and D4 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.
15/01541/LBA 19 Lansdown Crescent
Internal alterations to remove inserted glazed timber screen to front area that encloses the entrance bridge and to remove 1970s internal partitions and ceiling and other alterations and repair. Support: The Trust welcomes this well documented application for the removal of 1970’s subdivisions which will reinstate the original plan form of the spaces owned by Beckford, and therefore enhance this highly significant asset.
Designed by Ice House Design